On the same day I write in The Sunday Telegraph praising the new generation of Conservative MPs, a nameless Tory MP - who has "spent many years in the Commons" - has written an article for today's Mail on Sunday which attacks the Class of 2010 on multiple fronts...

They are mates of Cameron and Osborne, political chameleons and careerists: "Top of the list were their friends who went to the same school or moved in the same social circle. Or women with degrees from smart universities who could glide through the Tory death-by-canapé drinks parties with flawless received pronunciation – even if they had been Labour members only yesterday. Then there were the ambitious sycophants and plain old careerists who would sell their own grandmother for a pat on the back or a wink from a whip."

They are cliquey: "Tory MPs who entered Parliament at the last Election behave as if they are the first-ever intake, oblivious to the unspoken rules of the Commons, the subtleties that it takes years to learn. Instead, they arrived with a born-to-rule arrogance and tossed aside these courtesies. For example, there is a longstanding custom in the tea room that after you buy your food you take the next vacant seat at the first available table. It is designed to ensure no MP has to eat alone. Parliament can be a lonely place. This went out of the window with the 2010 intake, who walk past members in search of one of their own clique, or snub someone they feel is out of favour with the whips or Cameron. The same happens in the bars, as they kept to their own group, openly nervous about whom they are seen talking to."

Anna Soubry, the MP for Broxtowe recently profiled by Paul Goodman and a hot tip for rapid promotion, comes in for special criticism. She is called out for her "unpleasant personal verbal attack" on Mark Pritchard before last week's circus vote at a meeting of the 1922 Committee:

"From the day Anna arrived in Parliament, her zealous enthusiasm for every dot and comma of Cameron’s Tory modernisation programme has been painfully obvious. A female MP told me rather harshly it doesn’t help that Anna ‘looks as if she is sucking on a lemon’.Anna seemed to blame Mark for effectively putting Tory MPs on the spot in a Commons vote on banning animals in circuses. Mark is passionate about animal welfare. But Cameron couldn’t stomach the thought of a backbencher having influence over Government policy, even one as minor as circus animals – though a ban has 92 per cent public support. The word went out from No 10: ‘Kill Mark.’ Perhaps it is sheer coincidence that Anna is Parliamentary Private Secretary to Simon Burns MP, Minister of State for Health, who is a close personal friend of Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin and was also a long-serving whip prior to becoming a Minister."

Read the full piece which also includes strong attacks on David Cameron's approach to party management.

As MPs, new and old, gather tomorrow in the tea room you can be sure that there'll be one top topic of conversation: Who wrote that Mail on Sunday article?

Rob Hayward is an elections analyst and the former Conservative MP for Kingswood.

I recently dashed off a very quick set of thoughts for ConHome concerning Lewis Baston’s ideas about the likely results of the current boundary review, as I understood them.

Despite my criticisms of the Democratic Audit (DA) plans (as reported in The Guardian), let no-one under-estimate the difficulties involved. Not only should the Democratic Audit proposals be read in this context, but the skill of the Boundary Commissions in dealing with what is both a very difficult and politically emotive subject should also be recognised.

Putting to one side the complaint that the DA ideas are party political, which I still believe (see Luton and North London for examples) there are three broad problems arising from the plans now published on their website.

Split wardsThe Boundary Commission for England (BCE) has clearly stated (it is on their website if you are so inclined to look) that "in the absence of exceptional and compelling circumstances it would not be proportionate and appropriate to divide wards". These are very firm words from the Commission. I have been in the world of redistributions too long to believe that people will not see ‘their case’ as unique or compelling. It is however often too depressingly easy to identify other more meritorious ‘unique cases’. In recent discussions I have been given compelling reasons for crossing regional boundaries in Humberside, Teesside, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, the West Midlands and London - in several directions. Hardly unique nor exceptional.

Following the very sad death of Labour MP David Cairns last month, a by-election is pending in the West of Scotland constituency of Inverclyde.

Sky News were reporting last night that the writ for the by-election will be moved this afternoon for a contest on June 30th.

I am reliably informed that the Conservative candidate is poised to be David Wilson (pictured), who contested the seat at last year's general election. A retired businessman, he is a member of Inverclyde Council and active in a variety of organisations in the local community.

He will be formally adopted as candidate at a meeting tomorrow.

The result at the general election was:

Labour - 20,933 (56.0%)

SNP - 6,577 (17.5%)

Lib Dem - 5,007 (13.3%)

Conservative - 4,502 (12.0%)

UKIP - 433 (1.2%)

It is clearly one of Labour's safest seats and on paper would require a swing of more than 19% to the SNP for the Nationalists to take the seat. At last month's Scottish Parliament election, the nearest equivalent seat, Greenock and Inverclyde, was held by Labour with a majority of 511 over the SNP.

Rob Hayward is an elections analyst and the former Conservative MP for Kingswood. Here he casts considerable doubt on the accuracy of Lewis Baston's new research into the likely new parliamentary boundaries.

Lewis Baston has produced what I can best describe as an interesting set of boundary proposals published in today’s Guardian (and summarised earlier on ConHome here). It is firstly worth remembering that Lewis is active within the Labour Party, and his proposals are clearly influenced by his party loyalty. The plan is therefore overly optimistic for Labour, pessimistic for the Conservatives and very pessimistic for the Liberal Democrats.

The proposals are not helped by graphics that don’t match parts of the script (key onto a constituency in Edinburgh and you get comments concerning Dumfriesshire, whilst there are no details regarding London seats); the regional figures for the South East don’t complement the seat-by-seat analysis on other maps; and on the regional map Labour is down two but the map of specific seats suggests the Lib Dems are down two.

Of the specific proposals, for example, those for Eastern England do not seem to have any impartial coherence. They somehow retain two Labour seats in Luton, whcih is quite an achievement by any standards when both seats are 10,000 under-sized. Nearly every proposal for the area links Bedfordshire with Hertfordshire, while this plan keeps the two counties separate. Even following that process, however, it is nigh on impossible to create two Labour seats around Luton.

In Cheshire there are some very striking oddities starting with the Wirral seats and working east towards Manchester. I agree that one Tory is likely to lose a seat in Cheshire but the inference of the study appears to be that the Tories will have a marginal seat in the Wirral (more likely a safe seat) whilst two Lib Dem seats in Stockport becomes one ‘Lib Dem marginal’ of Stockport South. Those that know the area of Wirral/Cheshire and Manchester better than I are bemused by the suggestions.

Nice try, Lewis, but more oddities will appear as the day goes on.

The two saving graces for this plan? Firstly, that it is so obviously party biased and secondly that it is somewhat less biased than the proposals that the same person and organisation produced in December 2010!

A statement has just arrived in my inbox out of the blue from James Arbuthnot, the Conservative MP for North East Hampshire, to the effect that he will not stand as a candidate at the next general election:

"It has been a great privilege to have represented North East Hampshire for the last fourteen years, and before that Wanstead and Woodford for ten. My constituents have been generous and supportive and have taught me much. Their friendship has meant a great deal to Emma and me, and we shall always be grateful to them.

"After a fulfilling career, first as a barrister and then in Parliament, it is now right to move on at a time when I can still take on new challenges. My Chairmanship of the Defence Select Committee, an especially rewarding role, comes to an end at the end of this Parliament. That will be the right moment to step down."

Arbuthnot was MP for Wanstead and Woodfood between 1987 and 1997, but on its abolition ahead of the 1997 election, he was selected to contest North East Hampshire, which he has represented ever since. He served as Opposition Chief Whip throughout William Hague's time as Tory leader.

His announcement comes on the day that new research will be focusing MPs' minds on the effects of the reduction in parliamentary seats that will come with the boundary changes which come into force at the next election.

"Lib Dems face crisis over new electoral map", screams the headline on the front of this morning's Guardian.

It is reporting on what it suggests is the "most detailed analysis yet" of the likely outcome of the review of constituency boundaries currently being undertaken by the various Boundary Commissions.

The research, conducted by a Democratic Audit - a research group based at Liverpool University - maps the results of last year's general election onto a set of boundaries based on a 600-seat House of Commons, which is the number of constituencies that will exist at the 2015 general election.

It suggests that each of the parties would have won fewer seats, as follows:

Reading Dewi at Slugger O'Toole's analysis of the Scottish election results - and the fact the SNP were only a few thousand votes short of an even more stunning victory, such was the small size of the Lab/Con/Lib majority in a number of Holyrood seats - I was reminded of the fragility of a number of Conservative Westminster seats.

When examining our performance in last year's general election, an often over-looked fact is that many, almost certainly the majority, of Conservative MPs who won their seats last year from Labour, have smaller majorities than their Labour predecessors had in 1997.

This should be a cause for concern. If there was an election in a month's time, and even if the parties were level, at, say, 37%/37% and the Lib Dems on 10%, electoral calculators show Labour would win back tens of seats we gained last year.